Chris provided me with the
attached PPT, but I can't figure out how to scale it down to fit on the page
without making it illegible. If all else fails we can craft our own version and
include it in the spec . . .
- gp
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:43 AM
To:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] Fw:
[ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
So,
things we should discuss:
- Should we reorder the schema, message examples and
wsdl? I think Marc's idea sounds right - schema, wsdl and then
samples
- Who has the source for
figure 2?
- Thoughts on quotes around
"none" ? Not a biggie but I do prefer them there.
thanks,
-Doug
-----
Forwarded by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 06/07/2006 10:36 AM -----
Doug
Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
06/07/2006 10:39 AM
To
"Marc Goodner"
<>
cc
Subject
Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD
13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments
inline.
-Doug
"Marc Goodner" <> wrote on 06/05/2006
02:07:29 PM:
> WS-RM WD 13
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
>
php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf
>
> Line numbers in this document are inaccurate, particularly in
> Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages
> where there are not two of the same.
>
> I did not review the state tables
given there is another revision
> planned. Similarly I did not examine
the schema, message examples or
> wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why
are these section in that order?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to have
the wsdl follow the schema?
Will discuss with editors.
> Section 2
> Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits
it”.
> Change “that
Sends” to “that sends”
Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen)
> Figure 2 is not legible.
Working on it - but a little mystery
makes life exciting :-)
> Section 3.1
> Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be in
quotes.
Will discuss
with editors but I think it might confuse non-WSA
experts to not have it in quotes.
> Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term
optional is used and not in caps.
Fixed
> Section 3.2
> Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used
and is not in caps.
Fixed
>
Section 3.3
> Line
459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])” and “of”.
Fixed
> Section 3.5
> Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section
3.6”.
Fixed
> Section 3.6
> Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section
Request Acknowledgment” is
> not consistent with references elsewhere
in spec. Change “Section
> Request Acknowledgement” to “Section
3.5”.
> Line 562, page
19 “piggy-backing does not need to be in quotes.
> Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text
is used in the text
> that follows it is more than a
note.
Fixed
>
Section 4
> The first
two paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates
> of each
other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
> sentence
description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
> the second
paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is
preferable.
Please
do - since those paragraphs have been of some concern to
some
people I'd
prefer to get agreement on it.
> Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning
on line 668 after “detected”.
> Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version of
WS-Addressing
> used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as
we only
> reference a single version of Addressing.
> Line 676, page 22 change “current
version” to “W3C Recommendation”
> Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value,
“http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”
For consistency I did this but I think we
need to revisit this since
WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only be used for
WSA
faults - and
we're talking about RM faults in this section. WSA
suggests that other specs define their
own URI - or am I reading
this wrong?
> Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing” to
“section 6
> of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”.
> Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value,
“http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”
Fixed
> Section 6
> Update [WS-Addressing] to point to
Recommendation.
> W3C
Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core”, May
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/
>
> W3C
Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 – SOAP Binding”, May
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
>
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member
Submission.
> W3C
Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>
> Update
[WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services
Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
Fixed
>
Section C
> Line 1469
change “non-normative” to “normative”.
Fixed
> Section E
> Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.
Can you open an issue so we don't
forget about this?
> WS-RM Policy WD9
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
>
php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf
>
> Section 4
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member
Submission.
> W3C
Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>
> Update
[WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission,"Web Services
Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April
2006.
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/
>
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
>
> Add reference
to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done in WS-RM).
> Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip
Hallam-Baker, Ronald Monzillo, eds. "
> OASIS Web Services
Security:
> SOAP
Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)", OASIS Standard
> 200602,
February 2006.
Fixed
> Section A
> Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.
can you include this in the same
new issue as the RM spec one?
RM Model-cbf.ppt
